OT: Want opinions on Imperium Galactica II: Alliances

[Shyrka]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
age of the player? im probably the youngest player on this forum at a youthfull 23, at a mental level of about 12, and i didnt like it much either. what age group did you think it would appeal to?

---

Fifteen or less. Any age that prefers graphics and action better than strategy (The galactic zoom & animation of IG2 is awesome).

BTW, i totally agree with Jourin' s post.

[Phoenix-D]

"Any age that prefers graphics and action better than strategy"

I hate generalizations like this.

Phoenix-D

[Puke]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"Any age that prefers graphics and action better than strategy"

I hate generalizations like this.

Phoenix-D

---

i prefer to generalize people into Groups of those who get out of the shower to take a pee, and those who do not. its a matter of us and them, and its high time something was done about their kind.

[tesco samoa]

If you can get it for under 20 pick it up.....

The game lacks bite.

and has no staying power.

I played it for about 3 weeks then grew bored of it, just not enough to keep a person interested in it.

[dmm]

Thanks for all the input so far. BTW, he is 13.

[Fyron]

IG2 was terrible. I played it for about 2 hours and then uninstalled it. Luckily, I borrowed a friend's copy instead of purchasing, my own copy (and no, I didn't burn the game or anything, I just borrowed the CD for about a day), so I didn't waste any money on it. The ground battles were flashy and pointless. Either you had over-whelming force and won easily, or your troops were too weak and you couldn't win. The fighters were too powerful. The AI purchased about 60-80 fighters in the first 15 minutes of the game, and no amount of ships I built could possibly defend against them. I think the AI cheated like the Civilization AI cheats, getting significantly reduced costs on everything. Overall, there was way too much micromanagement, especially for a real-time game. There was too much flash and no content.

[Wardad]

I bought IG II at Best Buy, In a cheap little cardboard two game pack for $10. The other game was better.

The AI does cheat in the scripted scenarios (pirates etc). The enemy strength is always relative to yours. It's a roll of the dice, so save and replay.
P.S. If your Human race steal the Prototype Ship because it is so much cheaper to build it's vital and long term effective.

The AI races always know where your weak and will attack you there.

Colony management is the pits. Not much choice as to what to build.

UPGRADES HAPPEN!!!

[jpowell]

I stuck with IGII for a long time, because I really liked the original IG, and the battles were fun to watch. I gave up on it when I had the realization that the storyline just was tacked on to justify the shooting, and the plot "triggers" didn't work. Example: as the humans, you are trying to solve a domestic mystery, and accidentally discover that a race of xenophobes (Krahen) have massed a fleet and are poised to exterminate the galaxy. Your task is to form alliances (hence the name of the game, IGII, Alliances) with the other races to stop them. One small problem: by the time this story line reveals itself, the Krahen have usually destroyed most of the other races and are on your tail already! This makes the cut-scenes (which are quite good) and the RPG-like quests rather pointless. IGII is another case of a lot of time and money thrown at graphics and audio while comparatively little time was spent on gameplay and balance.

[Growltigga]

I think my view of IGII accords with the general consensus - a great game to have in one's collection because it does look absolutely beautiful, especially in the battles. I agree that the depth, playability and specifically the story line are pretty weak.

IMHO, this is a common affliction to a lot of space action games - I can see the company CEO saying to the programmers, "come up with a fantastic space shoot-em-up, lots of violence, lots of explosions and lots of noise, dont worry about anything else - make it look beautiful and when you have done that, go and talk to the scripting department who will try and piece it all together"

SEIV IMHO works becauser it DOESNT have a storyline therefore nothing to accord to therefore concentrates on depth and playability

I consider that one of the few games to successfully combine this is Homeworld and Homeworld Cataclysm - looks great, plays well, story ok and no adaptability ie you cant change what you build

One day, someone will come up with a meld of the gameplay of SEIV and the battle style and visuals of Homeworld - now that is the game I would want to buy

[dmm]

Thanks to everyone who rendered an opinion. Thought I'd give you all an update. Downloaded the demo against my better judgment at son's pleading. We've played it a few times; it is pretty fun and never once crashed our system. It definitely doesn't have SEIV's depth or modability, but there is a lot to like. Besides of course the eye-candy and ear-candy that many of you mentioned, there are a number of good "strategy" features. I like the way intel is done, using individual spies and costing money. I like the way research facilities are divided up into ship, tank, and building research. I like the way manufacturing is separated into ship and tank factories. I like its planetary guns, which can hit capital ships anywhere in the combat sector but can't hit fighters at all. (Of course that Last one can be modded into SEIV.) I like the lack of warp points -- you have to guard an entire border, not just a few chokepoints. (You can sort-of mod that into SEIV by having many warp points per sector.) And I like that it has real ground combat, with terrain and fortresses and everything.

Bottom line: We found a site selling it for 7 US$ (plus 5 US$ S&H ). So we bought it. I'll let you know what I think of the full game in a few months. But of course by then SEIVG will be out and you won't care!